Pre-Harvard-game analysis
Posted by Hillel
Pre-Harvard-game analysis
Posted by: Hillel (---)
Date: February 11, 2003 01:28PM
On uscho.com's men's D-I message board, a veteran Harvard poster who goes by the handle of "Homer" posted an analysis of the Cornell-Harvard matchup that was so insightful that I just had to reproduce it here. Homer, if you're reading this, thank you, and forgive me for doing this without your permission.
I didn't see this season's first Cornell-Harvard game, but based on what I saw at last year's ECAC championship game at Lake Placid, Homer is dead on. In that horrible game, Harvard pulled off almost exactly what's outlined below. It was an absolutely f'ing brilliant game plan, executed beautifully ... and something I hope never to see again.
Posted by Homer on uscho.com/vb (men's D-I) on 2/11/03 at 10:05 am:
"In my mind, the focal point will be the battle to establish a forecheck. If Cornell gets the puck deep and it takes 3 or 4 one-on-ones for Harvard to gain control and clear, then even if the Crimson doesn't let up a goal, they'll be at shift's end by the time they make the neutral zone. Consequently, their options will likely be reduced to wrapping and chipping or dumping and not chasing so they can get fresh legs out there and in either case, Cornell will be able to set up another rush and forecheck. Harvard either needs to pass well from the first touch to short-circuit the Big Red forecheck before it ever starts or the Crimson D needs to win that first one-on-one and get the puck turned around so the unit has time to think about making a push up the ice. And when Harvard does get a chance to carry the puck through the neutral zone, then even if the forwards can't get a good look off the rush, they need to at least parlay that into a sustained sequence of forechecking of their own. The Crimson talked up the aggressive two-man forecheck as a big aid to its postseason run last season, but I didn't see much of any forecheck in the first meeting. Result: Cornell was usually fresh on D, they were able to challenge attackers along the perimeter, shooting lanes were hard to find, and the Big Red blocked 20+ shot attempts.
Harvard also has to start and finish periods better. Cornell was +3 in that department last time, scoring in the first two minutes of the first, then turning out the lights with two in the final 90 ticks of the second (and I thought the Big Red noticeably upped the ante for those final shifts). Coaches harp on the first two minutes and the last two minutes for a reason."
I didn't see this season's first Cornell-Harvard game, but based on what I saw at last year's ECAC championship game at Lake Placid, Homer is dead on. In that horrible game, Harvard pulled off almost exactly what's outlined below. It was an absolutely f'ing brilliant game plan, executed beautifully ... and something I hope never to see again.
Posted by Homer on uscho.com/vb (men's D-I) on 2/11/03 at 10:05 am:
"In my mind, the focal point will be the battle to establish a forecheck. If Cornell gets the puck deep and it takes 3 or 4 one-on-ones for Harvard to gain control and clear, then even if the Crimson doesn't let up a goal, they'll be at shift's end by the time they make the neutral zone. Consequently, their options will likely be reduced to wrapping and chipping or dumping and not chasing so they can get fresh legs out there and in either case, Cornell will be able to set up another rush and forecheck. Harvard either needs to pass well from the first touch to short-circuit the Big Red forecheck before it ever starts or the Crimson D needs to win that first one-on-one and get the puck turned around so the unit has time to think about making a push up the ice. And when Harvard does get a chance to carry the puck through the neutral zone, then even if the forwards can't get a good look off the rush, they need to at least parlay that into a sustained sequence of forechecking of their own. The Crimson talked up the aggressive two-man forecheck as a big aid to its postseason run last season, but I didn't see much of any forecheck in the first meeting. Result: Cornell was usually fresh on D, they were able to challenge attackers along the perimeter, shooting lanes were hard to find, and the Big Red blocked 20+ shot attempts.
Harvard also has to start and finish periods better. Cornell was +3 in that department last time, scoring in the first two minutes of the first, then turning out the lights with two in the final 90 ticks of the second (and I thought the Big Red noticeably upped the ante for those final shifts). Coaches harp on the first two minutes and the last two minutes for a reason."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.